Appeal No. 2006-1390
Application No. 10/291,206
Because the sheath has a lower melting point than the core, the logical conclusion is the one
made by the examiner, i.e., that the sheath melts and adheres to the monofilament.
In view of the above, we therefore affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1 through
4, 6 through 8, 38, 39, and 42 through 48.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 9, 40, 41, and 49 through 51 as being obvious over
Dailey in view of Stumpf and further in view of Waldrop
The examiner's position for this rejection is set forth on pages 5 and 6 of the Answer. The
examiner relies upon Dailey in view of Stumpf, as discussed above, and further relies on
Waldrop for teaching use of a fill yarn comprising air jet textured polyester and that such use
provides a fabric with desirable aesthetic and tactile features. Answer, pages 5 and 6. The
examiner also relies upon Waldrop for teaching that when the elastomeric component makes up
at least 40% by weight of the woven fabric, the fabric has improved retention in strength
properties and elastomeric performance (Answer, page 6).
On pages 5 and 6 of the Brief, appellants argue that Waldrop does not disclose or suggest a
monofilament which can be used in a leno weave configuration. However, as explained supra,
the examiner relied upon the combination of Dailey in view of Stumpf for this teaching.
Appellants also argue that Waldrop does not supply motivation to combine the references.
Appellants argue that Waldrop does not contain any teaching that would have motivated one of
ordinary skill in the art to utilize the fabric disclosed in Waldrop with the monofilament
disclosed in Dailey in the seating structure disclosed in Stumpf. Appellants argue that Waldrop
is directed to a fabric comprising yarns that are interwoven by a means of a barathea, twill, or
dobby weave, whereas Stumpf is directed to a modified leno weave configuration. We are not
convinced by this argument for the following reasons.
As pointed out by the examiner on page 9 of the Answer, Waldrop was not relied upon to
teach features such as heat setting to bond the warp and weft yarns together. The examiner
explains that Dailey teaches this aspect of the invention. The examiner also points out that
Waldrop does disclose that the woven seat structure can be made from various weave structures.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007